Thanks very much, Mark. Very helpful comparisons. I’m leaning toward the 16-45 at the moment. I checked prices but not reviews on the 16-85. It’s out of my range price-wise.
> On May 12, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Mark C <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have both the Pentax 17-70 f4 and 16-45 f4. > > Comparing the two lenses - > > Sharpness: My 16-45 is noticeably sharper at f4 and slightly sharper at f5.6 > and beyond. The 17-70 is a little soft at f4 but improves when stopped down. > Both of my lenses seem to be consistently sharp through their zoom ranges. > > Close Focusing: The 17-70 is slightly better in both magnification and > working room. > > Focusing: I love the silent focusing of the 17-70 and have no complaints > about the AF accuracy. There are a lot of complaints of SDM failures in > reviews though. As a manual focus lens, the throw on the 17-70 (about 90 > degrees) is so small it would be hard to precisely focus it. The 16-45 is > reminds me of most other Pentax AF zooms - no problems but a little noisy. > > Focal length: I can't say I notice the difference between 16 and 17mm at the > short end. I very much notice the difference between 45mm and 70mm though. > > Handling: The 16-45 is at its longest physical length when set to 16mm, which > can cause a shadow in photos taken with a flash at the wide end. However, it > is lighter and somewhat smaller than the 17-70. > > The 17-70 is my main general purpose lens at this time - the more versatile > zoom range and slightly better close focusing offset the slightly lower > optical performance. I also really like the silent focusing - the whirring of > a cam driver focusing mechanism in public places is a little annoying. But I > use the 16-45 when I want the best possible performance and can live with a > maximum 45mm focal length. > > There is a new 16-85 (?) zoom out now as well - I have not yet read a review > but it may be worth thinking about. > > Mark > > > On 5/12/2015 11:48 AM, Eric Weir wrote: >> Well, when isn’t cost a consideration? I’ll put it this way: I’d like to >> have a 20-40/2.8-4 limited but that’s beyond my means. A 16-45/4 is much >> more affordable and I might go up to double KEH’s price for it if there was >> something that might be better for me, e.g., something as wide as the 16-45 >> but with a longer zoom range. >> >> It seems that my photography requires either that or a telephoto and not >> much in between. So I’m not especially interested in trying to accommodate >> all that in one lens. I just want a good wide-angle zoom. >> >> So, should it be the 16-45 or is there something else I should consider. >> >> Thanks, >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Eric Weir >> Decatur, GA USA >> [email protected] >> >> "Our world is a human world." >> >> - Hilary Putnam >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > --- > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus > protection is active. > http://www.avast.com > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA [email protected] “...we are a form of invitation to others and to otherness..." - David Whyte -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
